rep congressman says 'abortion never needed to save life of mother'

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
Republican Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois said after his Thursday debate against Democratic rival Tammy Duckworth that abortions are never necessary to save a pregnant woman's life, because modern technology has eliminated the risks of childbearing.
Walsh was defending his position that abortion should be outlawed with no exceptions, which is also the Republican Party's official stance on the issue.
"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance" of a pregnant woman's life being at risk, he told reporters after the debate. "There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing." He added that "advances in science and technology" meant that abortion is never necessary for the health of a mother.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ary-save-life-mother-175130900--election.html
 
The platform says.....

Support human life amendment; oppose abortion funding

Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012


Their is no wording 'banning' anything.....I don't think they can ban abortion.....its settled law by the SCOTUS,,,,

And no Amendment to Constitution would stand or ever have a chance of being passed in the first place....
 
bravo said:
The platform says....

Their is no wording 'banning' anything.....I don't think they can ban abortion.....its settled law by the SCOTUS,,,,

And no Amendment to Constitution would stand or ever have a chance of being passed in the first place....
Click to expand...

Uhhh, the amendment would effectively ban abortion, would overrule scotus and it would "stand." As far as whether it would pass, probably not, but the platform still supports the attempt. BTW, where did you decide that this had anything to do with splitting hairs over whether they use the word "banning."
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
Uhhh, the amendment would effectively ban abortion, would overrule scotus and it would "stand." As far as whether it would pass, probably not, but the platform still supports the attempt. BTW, where did you decide that this had anything to do with splitting hairs over whether they use the word "banning."
Click to expand...

Just wanted to reassure the people that banning abortion by one political party is impossible....passing an Amendment
by all 50 states is also impossible....SCOTUS could rule an Amendment unconstitutional with no problem.....its what they do......

You can't have one right given by the Constitution taken away by another Amendment.....

Its legal for decades and you can't put that genie back in the lamp.....

splitting hairs is what we do here.....like "binders"....."pension"....."bush tax cuts"......etc....
 
bravo said:
Just wanted to reassure the people that banning abortion by one political party is impossible....passing an Amendment
by all 50 states is also impossible....SCOTUS could rule an Amendment unconstitutional with no problem.....its what they do......

You can't have one right given by the Constitution taken away by another Amendment.....

Its legal for decades and you can't put that genie back in the lamp.....

splitting hairs is what we do here.....like "binders"....."pension"....."bush tax cuts"......etc....
Click to expand...

WTF RU talking about? "Uhhhh, since we can't actually do what we say we want to do you should completely ignore what we say we want to do." That's your defense and argument for supporting the GOP and this candidate?

Again, WTF RU talking about? An amendment does not need to pass all 50 states and SCOTUS can not rule that an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional. Whatever argument there is to support the consitutional right to an abortion would be replaced by the amendment.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
WTF RU talking about? "Uhhhh, since we can't actually do what we say we want to do you should completely ignore what we say we want to do." That's your defense and argument for supporting the GOP and this candidate?

Again, WTF RU talking about? An amendment does not need to pass all 50 states and SCOTUS can not rule that an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional. Whatever argument there is to support the consitutional right to an abortion would be replaced by the amendment.
Click to expand...

Of course, my mistake....3/4 of states must pass....after passing 2/3 of both houses....(its been a long day)

The point is, its practically impossible....even the ERA didn't make the grade and its was hardly as controversial as abortion....

Note the difficulty liberals have with circumventing the 2nd Amendment and they've been trying for decades....

what political partys want what they can actually do are two different things....

and I'm not supporting the GOP or that candidate in this issue at all.....to me its a done deal...its legal, and that right won't be taken away, by any new law or Amendment......its foolish to even worry about.

Just wanted to reassure the people that banning abortion by one political party is as close to impossible as one get, unless one party takes supermajority control of the entire

congress and that party takes over 38 states and a majority of their populations.....
 
Technically, Congress never has to vote on an Amendment. Historically, amendments have originated in the Congress and gone through the 2/3 voting process before being sent to the states for ratification. It doesn't have to be done that way.

Instead, 2/3 of the state legislatures can vote to call for a constitutional convention to propose an Amendment in that venue rather than Congress, and then the convention can send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. These days, any proposed amendment has a much better chance of making through a convention than through 2/3 of Congress...
 
the right cant win with this base and they can not without this base.


they own every inche of the tea party base.

They created it and now its killing them.



They lied to the stupid people in this country and created the stupid people party.


Lies and stupid are no way to run a country.



Its why they have to cheat in elections to win them
 
you know, abortion wasn't legal before 1972......yet everyone knew that abortion was acceptable to save the life of the mother......why is it that liberals pretend that what conservatives did for the first 196 years this country existed is something we couldn't figure out now........
 
What you people seem to remember about this whole issue is that everyone pretty much was pushed to agreement on this issue BECAUSE women were dying in illegal abortions all over the country.

Rich and poor.


They went to back allies so they didnt have to tell their families and ended up dying from infections or bleeding because of the conditions they were performed in.



That is what you are asking this country to go back to.


why?
 
bravo said:
Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life
Click to expand...

There's your problem.

You're reading too much into 'self-evident'.

The supreme court already came up with a word that solves this. Viable.
 
evince said:
dear idiot, how many women died trying to get abortions during that time?
Click to expand...

if I recall the CDC numbers correctly in 1971 it was less than 300.....numbers also show that as many women die today as a consequence of legal abortions than died from illegal abortions in the 70s......
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_legalization



Effects of legalization

The risk of death due to legal abortion has fallen considerably since legalization in 1973, due to increased physician skills, improved medical technology, and earlier termination of pregnancy.[80] From 1940 through 1970, deaths of pregnant women during abortion fell from nearly 1,500 to a little over 100.[80] According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of women who died in 1972 from illegal abortion was thirty-nine (39).[81] In 1960, Dr. Mary Calderone, a former director of Planned Parenthood, said:



“

Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind ...90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians ...Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist...[82]

”


The Roe effect is an hypothesis which suggests that since supporters of abortion rights cause the erosion of their own political base by having fewer children, the practice of abortion will eventually lead to the restriction or illegalization of abortion. The legalized abortion and crime effect is another controversial theory that posits legal abortion reduces crime, because unwanted children are more likely to become criminals.

Since Roe v Wade, there have been numerous attempts to reverse the decision. In the 2011 election season, Mississippi placed an amendment on the ballot that redefine how the state viewed abortion. The personhood amendment defined personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof". If passed, it would have been impossible to get an abortion in the state.[83]

On July 11, 2012, a Mississippi federal judge ordered an extension of his temporary order to allow the state's only abortion clinic to stay open. The order will stay in place until U.S. District Judge Daniel Porter Jordan III can review newly drafted rules on how the Mississippi Department of Health will administer a new abortion law. The law in question went in effect on July 1.[84]
 
Let's not overlook the fact that these proposed "personhood" laws would outlaw many forms of birth control and treatments for infertility just as they stopped promising research by banning stem cell treatments. It's all religiously based and has no place in a science based culture. Do we have to refight the middle ages along with the civil war? The people in this country that support this kind of thing are not the majority. They are the same 23% that have pushed this kind on insanity for 40 years in this country...calling it 'the culture war'...

This is why they lie and cheat and steal when it comes to elections.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you know, abortion wasn't legal before 1972......yet everyone knew that abortion was acceptable to save the life of the mother......why is it that liberals pretend that what conservatives did for the first 196 years this country existed is something we couldn't figure out now........
Click to expand...
Because it was fucking doctors and administrators and moron politicians who made the decision and not the woman who' ass was on the line you nitwit.

My mother was told in 1966 by her Physician, as she was in labor "You realize that I'm Catholic and if there's a problem I will save the baby.". She had no fucking say in the matter. That was goddamned wrong and Roe v. Wade set that right!

SCOTUS decided that it wasn't any of your fucking busniess. So why don't you try minding your own and keeping your nose out of others peoples private and personal decisions.

BTW - My parents fired his ass after my sister was delivered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top